561 Forum Posts by "Gario"
Mmm, you can get some tasty sounds out of distorted drumsets. Used it for my Zeal remix, to get that nice, crunchy bit-tastic sound. It's really a selective flavor, though, not meant to be used everywhere.
And yeah, I used Scream to do it. Not that you have much other choice when it comes to Reason, anyhow...
Happy birthday, you awesome music producer slash video game remixer, you. Keep up the music making love.
At 4/29/11 09:26 AM, crapatflash wrote:At 4/29/11 02:52 AM, Envy wrote: They exist, they're just called "People"I've heard of those... apparently they use some sort of weird new technology...
The technology they use is called 'Dictation', like I mentioned in my earlier post.
For all intents and purposes they don't exist (and probably never will exist) - waveforms are far too complicated to simplify into basic MIDI programs. You better start practicing your dictation, 'cause that's still the only way to do that sort of thing.
The Second Annual Grand Robot Master Remix Competition is looking for more recruits!
Copy pasta from the link (click the link for more details)...
"How does it work?
You, the remixer, choose any Robot Master from Mega Man 1-6 (NES), Mega Man 7 (SNES), Mega Man 8 (PSX), Mega Man 9-10 (DLC), Mega Man and Bass (SNES/GBA), or Mega Man Powered Up (PSP). Choose wisely, because this will be your Robot Master throughout the entire tournament. Once all competitors choose their Robot Masters, they'll be matched up with an opponent.
When the round begins, remixers will have one week to write a "VS. Remix;" that is to say, a remix featuring the themes of their own Robot Master and their opponent's Robot Master.
When the round ends, a public voting period of one week will be conducted for each battle. Voters should consider production, enjoyability, and how well the piece incorporates both themes."
The recruiting period started this week and will close next week if it fills up by that time. This is a fairly long competition, so be sure to have some endurance ready when you join. I hear more than enough talent on NG, so I want to see you guys share it with this compo!
Tracks that have resulted from this compo...
-
Countdown To Infinity by Willrock07Click to listen.
- Score
- 4.20 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Video Game
- Popularity
- 366 Views
-
Mega Man 9 - Tornado Man Remix by Willrock07
Click to listen.
- Score
- 4.35 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Video Game
- Popularity
- 872 Views
http://ocrmirror.iiens.net/files/music/r emixes/Mega_Man_2_Mechanical_Flare_OC_Re Mix.mp3
http://ocrmirror.iiens.net/files/music/r emixes/Mega_Man_9_Daft_Drafts_OC_ReMix.m p3
... to name a few. Come on down, it'll be great!
Sounds like you've been reading a little too much Thomas More, Kwing. You know what Utopia means, right? It's Greek for 'no place'. Because it doesn't, and cannot, exist. You know why?
Define 'Moral'. You will step all over many people's toes, no matter how you define it. You want to define it to be pluralistic? Good luck convincing those that believe pluralism is a form of compromise. No killing/stealing/general chicanery? These things wouldn't exist if the benefits of said actions didn't outweigh the moral consequences in the first place. Define it however you will, but there will be a very significant number of people that will disagree with you.
I understand this is entirely hypothetical, but you can't even be idealistic about it. There's no possible moral code that people could adhere to where such a world could exist.
At 4/25/11 09:21 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:At 4/25/11 06:55 PM, Gario wrote: Sorry, you just gotta deal with it.So? All voting systems are broken, but some are more broken than others.
*shrugs* Pretty much. More accurately, all systems are equally broken, but some people prefer some flaws over others.
Voting will always be flawed, and there's nothing you can do about it.
For those that don't want to read it, it's the mathematical proof that no matter how you slice it, you absolutely cannot form a voting system that actually works without any flaws, specifically...
Non-dictatorship
Unrestricted domain
Independence of irrelevant alternatives (that's the problem with the current system, btw)
Pareto efficiency
If you make a change to fix IIA, you MUST accept the fact that you'll face problems with an Unrestricted Domain (There can be as many people running as needed - by the way, that's the issue that the Two Party system suffers from) or Pareto Efficiency (your vote will actually help the candidate you're voting for - that's the issue with the 'alternative method' presented). It will suffer from none of these problems if (and only if) the given voting method is a dictatorship (meaning that there is only one vote). Change it to a different system and you'll end up moving from one problem to another - it is physically impossible to avoid that.
Sorry, you just gotta deal with it.
Workin' on a soundtrack for a game for Pico Day, but it looks like the game will be at least a few days late. Sadness. Oh well, I'll post a couple of tracks on Pico Day for you guys, anyway, for fun :).
Huh, I wonder if Wagner was a true artist or not. He didn't record or perform with instruments at all. All he ever did was write operas on a score and got everyone else to do the work.
According to your friend, there are quite a few composers that wouldn't be artists. Instrumentalists are fine, but there is more to writing music than playing an instrument, and it's very immature to believe otherwise.
Haaa... Well, if you want to do it yourself it's something you practice. Look up 'Dictation' and 'Dictation Exercises' in order to get started. Ultimately, though, it's a skill you need to work on, much like practicing an instrument.
I could do it for a fee, but I think it'd be better for you overall to learn the skill yourself. It's a very useful technique, for sure.
At 4/14/11 11:32 PM, Glib wrote: has reason 2.5 demo
HA! Reason 3.0, bitches!
-
Megaman 10 - Wily 2 by Gario
Click to listen.
- Score
- 4.35 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- Video Game
- Popularity
- 280 Views
-
Shooting at Heaven by Gario
Click to listen.
- Score
- 4.12 / 5.00
- Type
- Song
- Genre
- House
- Popularity
- 160 Views
... and with that lame lineup I realize I should try posting stuff more often.
At 4/13/11 09:34 PM, Envy wrote:At 4/13/11 07:00 PM, TheJeffyD wrote: Yes, she is hot as hell...Not really, once you throw the 31 and compulsive liar part. Now she's just an average middle aged woman.
QFE.
She could be a goddess at DJing, an excellent musician, a world-class producer, etc., but the fact remains that she stole 70+ tracks from NG claiming it was her own, and used that lie to obtain a record contract. That immediately rules her out of any sympathy for her losses, since that could've cost the people involved here their right to their own music had she succeeded. That will also probably rule her out of having a successful future, too, since producers do not want to get involved with people that could get them into trouble (e.g. someone who's known to plagiarize copywritten music).
I really prefer my old stuff to the things I'm doing today, but that's because my old stuff consists of choral music and chamber works that actually would get performed by my school, back in the day. Since I've left, though, no one's able to play that stuff, so I stick to electronic, now.
It breaks my heart.
sorry, tl;dr. Missed your other question there.
Which you should post an example of, since your not really making yourself clear :/
It's a symbol for a 'diminished' chord (a minor chord with the fifth lowered by a half step).
It seems that everyone else here has harmony writing covered (y no counterpoint, though? :P), so I think you have that covered. For melody writing, there're two approaches - making it smooth for flow and making it disjunct for interest. The idea is simple; you want a line that has a natural flow, and basic stepwise motion is the cleanest, smoothest sound you can have. Of course, if you stick with smooth lines only you'll have a pretty boring melody most of the time, so getting a leap in there from time to time to break the monotony give it color. Too many disjunct leaps will make the song sound incoherent and will contribute only lack of direction, though, so don't overkill it.
Sometimes mapping out melodies can help you write them, so here's a method to do just that. Take a sheet of staff paper (or copy your favored input method on your computer) and draw a line to represent the shape. Then fill in notes to match that shape, like the pic. You don't need to match the notes precisely - it's just a tool to help quickly give your ideas a shape before you put them down on paper. Think of it like doodling in art to generate ideas for a bigger project - it's much easier to work with than a blank slate, for sure.
That's the basics of melodic theory in very few words - play around with those ideas for a while and see where that takes you.
Huh, I'd tell everyone how bad Eugenics is and all (it is totally evil!!1!), but now that I think about it, Eugenics is Darwin Evolution taken to it's logical extreme. I like Evolution, so... yeah.
For some reason I can't find myself to logically hate on that, despite the fact that in some ambiguous moral fashion I should. Sorry, no flame war from me right now, for some reason.
Audacity is an incredibly powerful recording program (especially for free). I know recording engineers that use it for 95% of their recording needs - rarely do people need something incredible like Protools to get a recording job done.
In short, Audacity is just fine.
Sorry for the double post, but I need to add that money will not solve the vote splitting issue. In a most popular vote system, vote splitting will mathematically always be an issue. Throwing money at it is as effective as trying to pay mathematicians to divide by zero (I'm not kidding when I say voting is impossible to form a perfect system - look up Arrow's Impossibility theorem). It's a known issue that they know there is no answer for, so it will do absolutely nothing.
Correction - vote splitting can be corrected by changing systems, but then you either need to deal with a paradox where there is no winner or deal with a system where votes toward a candidate can ultimately lead to a loss, not a win (which is a paradoxical situation itself). There's no avoiding one of these problems.
Look, the numbers are made up and the people represented are not meant to actually represent their views specifically. I used those names as an example. Let me rephrase it.
There are three positions on a political spectrum. The two positions that are closest to one another will end up splitting votes, and most of the time the positions that are most popular are the centric ones (they are, in fact, a Nash equilibrium, and thus it would theoretically be 'incorrect' to not be centric in your campaign), hence why I use centric politicians as the example.
Anyway, let's say there is one person that's far on the right (the 'polar') and two that are more in the middle (although far more left, compared to the polar side). The two central positions will be fighting over the votes that go to the center while the polar position will virtually remain unchanged. The central politicians thus often lose, even if there are more voters that favor the central side.
So no, in my example Obama and Nadar are losers together where separately they'd topple Bush.
At 4/5/11 05:51 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:At 4/5/11 05:43 PM, Gario wrote:actually, the centralist party is not always as unpopular as you think.At 4/5/11 05:39 PM, Gario wrote: Two parties are the most manageable, while three parties actually tends to benefit the most polarized party (due to the fact that people who support the polarized view will not split the votes between the moderate candidates).Had to fix that - otherwise it doesn't make sense :P
also: your vote can be wasted very easily. if one party has all the power then they don't necessarily have to pay attention to the other party, while alternately, the other party can just blindly disagree with everything the elected party does to make them look as bad as possible.
That's what I was trying to avoid with my fix.
In a party of more than two serious candidates, the relatively more central parties will lose more often than not because they will be competing for votes moreso than the polar parties. For example, let's say Nader was a serious party and Bush + Obama were running. Obama is much more of a centralist minded person while Bush is more of a polar representative, so while without Nader Obama would likely win (just... hypothetically speaking), with Nader the votes become split between Nader and Obama, ultimately costing the election. Bush loses no votes because his party doesn't overlap the other two parties in any fashion.
Example:
Bush:35%
Obama:65%
Obama wins!
OR
Bush:35%
Obama:33%
Nader:32%
Bush wins!
I'm not saying the centralist parties are not popular - in both those examples the centralist position was clearly the most popular one - but that they will often lose despite that due to the idea of vote splitting.
At 4/5/11 05:39 PM, Gario wrote: Two parties are the most manageable, while three parties actually tends to benefit the most polarized party (due to the fact that people who support the polarized view will not split the votes between the moderate candidates).
Had to fix that - otherwise it doesn't make sense :P
Actually, you'll have a pretty broken voting system no matter how many candidates you have according to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Two parties are the most manageable, while three parties actually tends to benefit the most polarized party (due to the fact that people who support the polarized view will not vote for the moderate candidates).
It's also mathematically proven that there's nothing we can do about it, either. Voting systems are never nice or fair. Life sucks like that.
At 4/5/11 04:00 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Don't Catholic schools still have to adhere to certain standards about what constitutes "education"? In short are they not completely autonomous from the accepted ideas of public schools?
I'm sure they do. This wasn't a class in sex ed, though. It was a class on Catholic doctrine, in particular. That class really isn't applicable to any standard since the government cannot hold an official religious position.
And because they're not a part of the public school system, they actually are autonomous from one accepted idea from public schools - they are allowed to teach kids what their faith is. Unlike public school, it's not the school that parents chose when they have nowhere else to go. It's a school they pay for to teach their kids what they want, so if they don't like it then they can go somewhere else.
Also I think this goes to the idea of "does a school have a right to teach hate or discrimination or dislike"? Because it's obvious that's what this guy is doing.
Nope, it's not (unless it is, of course - like I said, my internet's not running video, so I can't watch it until tomorrow, or something). From what I've read on it, he's teaching strictly what the Church's position on the topic is, which is to literally NOT discriminate against homosexuals, and specifically NOT to hate them (I'll look up the good ol' Catechism later for that paragraph specifically, but that's what I've read before). The only thing that could be offensive is that they teach Catholics not to participate in it, either, since it is objectively a sin in the church.
He IS indoctrinating his student body against homosexuality and very clearly saying it's a not something a Catholic should be. Which golly gee, if I'm gay, and I get that message, I don't think it's really a leap to see how that would cause massive amounts of turmoil and poor self image.
Yes, he's indoctrinating Catholics, in some sense (who should already know what their faith is anyway, by this point), but what are you asking the priest to do, tell them that their faith says one thing when it actually claims another? Or, perhaps, simply ignore that point because people might not like it? There's a name for that - it's called censorship.
Also, you do know that it's a Catholic school, right? That means that I can assume that the students already know that homosexual sex is a sin, so it'd already be an issue that they're concerned with regardless of whether or not he brings it up. Not talking about it isn't going to make that issue go away - in fact, I'd argue that having a priest bring it up will at the very least take the ambiguity out of the topic (which puts people at ease).
The fun thing about dogma is it can be changed, teachings can be changed. So I think it really becomes do we want someone to teach that a lifestyle or a sexual orientation is "wrong" because that's their belief system? Or at least what they interpret their belief to be.
Sure it can be changed, and hell, maybe it will someday. Who knows. It can't be changed by a single priest solely for the sake of censorship, though.
Telling a religion to 'get with the times or get out' is a form of censorship, which like it or not this country cannot do (that's why loonies like Westboro are allowed to preach what they do to in public places). That is my sole concern right now - whether or not it's 'right' isn't something that I'd be great at discussing intelligently (I admit having a heavy bias). Hence why I don't.
I say no. People used to say the Bible taught that blacks are slaves, and let's face it, the Bible blatantly gets crap wrong historically all the time...so I have a hard time believing the more odious and outdated moral code aspects should be preserved as well.
And those people who taught that were probably not a part of the Catholic church, either (at least I could bet that they weren't). The Church never had an official position on slavery before it's abolition, be it pro-slavery or anti-slavery, and only adopted a position after because, like you said, dogmas change. That's a red herring anyway, though, so we'll move away from that.
This isn't about preserving a moral code. It's about a priest's right to teach what the Catholic church believes in the context of a Catholic doctrine class. I would see your point (Indoctrinating Catholicism in a public school isn't right, either) except that's pretty much why parents spend the extra money to send the kids to the Catholic school, in the first place - it's not like this is being done behind their backs or anything. They acknowledge that by sending their kids to that school then they will be taught Catholicism, so whether or not you agree with the position is a moot point in this discussion. I'm only concerned with the right to practice religion.
Hate me for that if you must :)
I don't hate you. I love you. In an entirely platonic sense.
This actually goes out to Sexual Equality activists and pro-homosexual rights groups (as opposed to atheist/theists, in general), but I don't think this topic merits a new thread. Anyway...
Is this a position that pro-homosexual rights commonly hold?
I disassociate myself from homosexuality and neither support nor deny people's rights for it (from a Catholic, that's as supportive as I can be without full on rejecting my faith, by the way - ). I understand that I'm getting this from a site that may or may not actually represent the general homosexual rights population. I personally practice equal treatment of homosexuals in a society, since my beliefs are not to discriminate, no matter what.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, what the hell is this? Homosexual rights (or anyone's rights, for that matter) go only so far. It's one thing to tell people that you should have every right to marry, have equal job opportunity, etc., but it's another thing completely to tell people that they do NOT have the right to teach what their position is on the topic. A priest has every right to teach Catholics in a Catholic school what the official Catholic standpoint is on homosexuality. In fact, any religion has the right to teach what the official position of their faith is on any given issue - that right is protected by the United States. It's simply called 'Freedom of Religion'.
Telling people not to teach their faith on homosexuality is a direct infringement on their right. Stop it.
If that's a website designed to troll the internet with it's horribly skewed position then consider me trolled. However, I'd rather hear what actual gay rights activists have to say on this subject than read a single article and say 'Oh noes, you guyz r stoopid!' (that would make me stoopid), so what are your thoughts on it? Was it wrong for the Catholic priest to teach what the church's official position on homosexuality is in a Catholic school, and if so, why?
(By the way, this is a link to the lecture in question - I can't watch it now, unfortunately, but I will as soon as I can to confirm whether what he's teaching is, in fact, the churches' position on it and not simple bigotry on his end).
At 4/4/11 10:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/4/11 08:31 PM, Gario wrote: By pure coincidence, someone posted this on my Facebook yesterday. It speaks in pretty fair detail why the current system of public education is flawed today. In short, though, it's the fact that the original paradigm was designed around Enlightenment ideals and Industrial technology, both of which are severely outdated.Do you even understand what you mean when you say that? Enlightenment ideals. Industrial technology.
Yeah. I truncated the idea because I figured the video could speak for itself.
This guy talks and talks and talks. He says some smart things, but not ONCE does he give any solution to the problems he says exist. Also one of his major premises is completely false. Much of what he says seems like absolute puffery as well.
Nope, he doesn't, but I think the point was simply to put a problem into light (which is pretty much what the OP wanted, if I recall). Although I'm curious which point you're talking about - not to attack it, I'm just curious.
Now I 100% agree with the ADD (ADHD) points, and the encouraging of creativity. Yet, where in this fancy talk does he give a solution? I mean hell, I can howl about how something is wrong until I'm blue, but that's not going to change a thing. If you think such a goal is so damn good, show us the way, or stay in your utopia land while I learn to live and succeed in our real world.
Good point. Again, though, the OP wanted to know the problem in particular, so I figured that video was relevant.
His major premise that the system fails the vast majority is just not true. While there are a few who are failed and some who get lucky but really don't deserve it, the economy is still composed of laboroers and profesionals. Until our economy exists solely of, or greater than 1/3, white collar workers we should expect there to be mass amounts of people who essentially go through the motions. Does this guy actually mean to tell me that my mechanic needs to know calculus? That the telemarketer needs to know Shakespeare? That the grocery store worker needs to history? That a farmer needs to know the law? Sorry, but no. Take a look at cities like Seattle. Over 50% of the people there have bechelor's degrees and are damn smart and creative. The culture has thrived because of it, but at least 1/3 of those people carried jobs that in now way required such a degree. Trust me, I was one of them. Our economy just does not have the room. Now 27% (National Avergae) may be a bit low, but I doubt that too much higher is feasible.
No, I don't think that was his point. He was saying separating people based by labeling them as 'academic' and 'non-academic' and then teaching them in separate institutions is an outdated model. It's not that a mechanic needs calculus more than the fact that compartmentalizing subjects and separating people's education for the sake of efficiency often ends up cutting efficiency and effectiveness. Personally I agree with that notion, but that's really an opinion + what I've experienced.
Finally, the whole divergent thinking pipe dream? Wow. Ask about paper clips and the person is applauded for thinking (what if it were an apple that tastes like a grape?) Creativity is good, but really? Like above, our economy is still heavily based on mindless labor. Agaian, does my mechanic need to be able to look at some blocks and be able to mentally design 100 buildings? No.
True, true... Not disagreeing, there.
Our economy is full of have nots. And as long as the majroity of our workers fall into this position, there is no need to massively reevamp education, or at least solve the "problems" this guy talks of. He can keep his utopian wishes in his academic office, the rest of us who exist in the real world will take our reality cold.
There is most certainly a need to revamp education. Completely unrelated to that video (I still think it's nice food for thought, despite it's flaws), for an education that's cost more and more every year, why the hell hasn't it's effectiveness increased proportionally? At best, it simply tries to retain status quo while the price tag increases. Something is certainly broken, if it costs more and more every year to maintain the same output.
By pure coincidence, someone posted this on my Facebook yesterday. It speaks in pretty fair detail why the current system of public education is flawed today. In short, though, it's the fact that the original paradigm was designed around Enlightenment ideals and Industrial technology, both of which are severely outdated.
Give it a watch - it's pretty interesting.
At 4/4/11 05:24 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No. We're talking about killing people in a United States Protect...
Already addressed when I said punishment for that particular crime should be administered. Try to respond after reading the entire argument next time and save yourself the embarrassment.
Even under Islamic law, this is murder, punishable by death. There's not a single country I am aware of in the world where this is legal. This was a crime. And everyone involved should be executed.
Then let them take care of it. Again, aside from those that rallied the troops to kill the UN members (that is our business, as it breaks international law), murder in the Middle East is not our business. As much as I'd love to indite Karzai for his role in this, that's considered an act of war... not something we need in that area right now.
Well, and those who killed anyone else. UN officials aren't more people than anyone else.
Not our jurisdiction. Let the people of the country take care of their own, we're not their wet nurses. At least, we damn well better not be.
Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.
OK. So let's bomb them. They're not near America anyways, right?
How is that even close to a valid response? What the hell are you talking about?
What a stupid retort.
You like hearing yourself talk, don't you? No need to narrate the argument - people can judge what is stupid and what isn't for themselves.
Yet, there's no paradox.
Yes, there is. Hey, I can argue that way too, if you want. Try giving a reason next time.
The old cannard of "my rights extend to your nose" is almost as old as man itself...
None of that is a reason why there's no paradox. Try again.
But the instant you try to hurt me, I have a right to defend myself to the fullest extent, including killing you. And if I fail, society has a right on my behalf to draw and quarter you for your crimes.
You should probably get your facts and temper checked. If someone tries to kill you then your action is justified, and even then only as a last resort, according to the law (ever heard of 'excessive force'?). If someone throws a punch then you only have the right to stop the punch and bring the person into submission, not to murder him.
Only stupid people mistake this. There's simply no way to be nice about this. If you think that killing a murderer to prevent a murder and murdering someone are the same thing...you're insanely stupid.
Let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. In this case, we're not fighting to protect the innocent, or anything like that (as can easily be shown by statements earlier in this thread). We're fighting to pass on our beliefs or pluralistic tolerance. We're proposing to kill people to enforce our belief in this thread. That is absolutely no different than the people that kill in order to enforce their own beliefs.
By the way, THIS point has nothing to do with the article in the OP - This is a completely different point that is attacking some people's sentiment in this thread to simply go in there and kill everyone who is intolerant of other's beliefs (or lack of). I think you got these two arguments mixed up.
The old saying is "I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not, I will defend to the death your right to hack your neighbor to bits with a hatchet because she insulted your religion.
Well then, now you've pulled some tripe that flat out lies about my position. Never have I defended people's right to 'hack your neighbor' - I only go as far as to say we have no right to be the executioners. You have no clue what my argument is, according to that post. Is it really that far above you're mental capacity?
I am saving lives. You're just too fucking stupid to understand it.
And yet I'm not the one reduced to using an a blatant ad hominem to prove my point.
Say a quiet thank you to the God you don't believe in that people like me will fight to the death to protect morons like you from savages who will kill you for your empty headedness.
Are you an American soldier? If you are then I will (and for the record, I believe very much in God, you presumptuous idiot). If you are not then please don't insult the American soldiers like that. If you're not a soldier then you are just another person who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them are morons, and in no way are you serving to protect me. It's an insult to even think that you're doing anything to 'protect me'.
Again, if you're a soldier then this does not apply to you.
Since you can't comprehend my point, I'll put it on the table for you in very basic terms. It is not Anti-American. It is not Pro-Islam. It is only Anti-Military in as far as I'm claiming it's a waste of our resources to police every detail of a nation.
Try to follow.
It is not our country, so your logic is immediately null and void. You are proposing to be the executioner to those that have little business with America (they scream and shout their protest, but aside from that they do very little). Unless the actions of the people have immediate consequences to America then we have no business to interfere, and even then opportunity should first be given to the law enforcement/military of the country in question before America becomes directly involved. The deaths in this case merit some action, but only because of the break in international law, not because the people were ranting and raving about how bad the Quran burning pastor was.
Point: We are not the peace keepers of the world on small scale events. Stop proposing that we enforce law in an area that is not in our jurisdiction. It's a waste of our time and resources.
At 4/4/11 02:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Screech noise! Nope, stop.
It's called rule of law.
No it's not. It's called 'We're in a country where we don't belong enforcing laws that are not theirs'. At what point did we obtain the right to enforce our law in a foreign country? If it were in America then sure, send the offending party to prison, execute them (if it's legal), whatever - but we're talking about eradicating people in another country because we don't like what they're doing.
Those responsible for killing 7 UN officials? Yes, get rid of them - they broke international law and need to be eradicated. But that's it.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything. But I expect that, if my neighbor and I disagree, that we will discuss it like adults, and that he won't go behead the neighbor's children in a fit of anger. And if he does, we will put a nice shiny bullet in his temple and kill him.
Very nicely said. Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.
Anyone who is not tolerant of others' right to exist if a disagreement arises...should themselves not exist. If you are incapable of dealing with people who aren't you and not murdering them...we execute you and remove your worthless self from humanity. Or, at the very least, lock you away in a tiny cage forever.
And the paradox of tolerance continues, folks. There's really no answer to this, is there? So what makes your opinion more valid than theirs? In the end, it still involves killing people that don't fly with your views, in the exact same vein as they are killing people that don't agree with theirs.
Before you claim that you're saving lives, let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. Exact same thing. No difference. Hence the paradox.
That's not "intolerance". It's civilization.
... by what definition, on both accounts?
Ai, it's a problem with the entire track? Yeah, simply deleting them would mess up the track as a whole...
Perhaps a little hard limiting over the entire track would help? If that particular sound is all you're dealing with that would do it, but if there are some sounds you want to keep at high levels (like a bass) and some samples that you want to fix then I'm afraid I don't know of what to do other than fix each offending part one... by... one... :(
Using a limiter will avoid the rhythmic problems of cutting, at least, but you'd be in for a long night of editing.
